I agree with you that Bostrom has a very convincing argument to make in terms of ‘attractors’.
That’s what confirmation/discomfirmation is about. It’s mostly probabilistic. (Falsifiability as a binary on-off concept is an outdated mode of doing science.)
This makes Bostrom’s work make much more sense but see my response to Daniel to see where I think it might still be problematic.
I agree with you that Bostrom has a very convincing argument to make in terms of ‘attractors’.
This makes Bostrom’s work make much more sense but see my response to Daniel to see where I think it might still be problematic.